• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

How Paul wrote the old testament.

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Metis- I don't know why we parted ways. Hope I didn't offend you earlier and I am sorry if I did. I really enjoy the convo's

Ahhhhhhhhhhh…..got it. I'm pretty slow tonight.
Notta problem on either of the above. Hey, sometimes I tend to "lose it", although at least I'm thankful that I'm not at all a violent person. But emotional, yes.

Happy New Year to you & yours, and also to all who may be reading this.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
Yes, there are many. I have also documented many misquotes in the Gospels. Not by Yeshua though.

Yet this one is interesting imho. Paul goes on a long rant were he cherry picks 6 different verses from the Psalm's and Isaiah, he pastes them together and reads it all as one quote. Just crazy.
Without getting in to it, let me just say that there are many quotes from the Tanakh that are badly taken out of their context, and there's even one "quote" (I believe from Jesus, but I'm going on my memory here, which is at times suspect) that cannot be found anywhere in the Tanakh.
 

Kolibri

Well-Known Member
There is one quote I am familiar with that was not from the Law, the Prophets, nor the Holy Writings but evidently was a saying that was in use by the religious leaders of his day.

"You heard that it was said: 'You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'" - Mt 5:43

The love part was substantiated by Le 19:18 but the second part of the phase has no connection with Hebrew Scripture.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
There is one quote I am familiar with that was not from the Law, the Prophets, nor the Holy Writings but evidently was a saying that was in use by the religious leaders of his day.

"You heard that it was said: 'You must love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'" - Mt 5:43

The love part was substantiated by Le 19:18 but the second part of the phase has no connection with Hebrew Scripture.
Agreed. Yeshua only said...."you have heard that it was said" so he wasn't necesarrily claiming it to be scripture. I believe he was talking about 1st century pharisaic doctrine in this case. I need to revisit that.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
BTW, just a reminder that what we read in the scriptures was not based on tape recordings of what they actually did say.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
You might be thinking that I am crazy but bear with me for a second. Paul has a strange habit of quoting scriptures horribly out of context from the original Hebrew text. But whats interesting is that I have found many of Paul's misquotes right there in the Greek LXX!!

Here is one of the most obvious examples of this rewriting of history to promote Pauline logic:

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seek after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no not one. Their throat is an open tomb; with their tongues they have practiced deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips; whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes." Romans 3:10-18

This is Paul's apparent direct quote from Scripture that is supposed to prove to us that no one is righteous, but all are full of evil. Now guess what? No such passage exists! What Paul quotes is a compilation of no less than six separate passages that have been jerked out of their original context from the Psalms and the book of Isaiah, given an interpretation that cannot be found there, and strung together to appear as one quote.

Paul's accuracy in quoting from the Psalms is no better. The first passage he quotes in verses 10-12 comes from Psalm 14. Here is his version again.

As it is written: "There is none righteous, no, not one; there is none who understands; there is none who seeks after God. They have all gone out of the way; they have together become unprofitable; there is none who does good, no, not one." Romans 3:10-12

Now here is the passage quoted accurately, and in its context.

The fool has said in his heart, "there is no God". They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none who does good. The Lord looks down from heaven upon the children of men to see if there are any who understand, who seek God. They have all turned aside, they have together become corrupt; there is none who does good, no, not one. Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge, who eat up my people as they eat bread, and do not call on the Lord? There they are in great fear, for God is with the generation of the RIGHTEOUS. Psalm 14:1-5

Guess what? In David's picture there are no atheistic fools who do good! This passage is obviously not speaking of every human being, but of a distinct group of people whom David describes as fools, atheists, workers of abominations, corrupt, ignorant, and workers of iniquity. Of course, not one of them do good. And these evil people are contrasted with a second group of real people known as "my people" and "the generation of the righteous". Right there in this very Psalm that Paul quotes from, there are obviously those whom God calls "righteous"! This is hardly the picture Paul wants us to get from this Psalm. Notice also Paul's embellishment of this passage. He would have us believe the phrase, "no, not one" is used twice when it is only used once. The first time Paul uses the phrase is where it doesn't exist, and it is coupled with the word "righteous". This word does not exist in this part of the Psalm, or anywhere near the words "no, not one". The word "righteous" only shows up later in verse 5, and there it directly implies that there are those who are righteous! So much for "no, not one".

In Paul's string of quotes, he continues to take snippets of Scripture out of their context from Psalm 5:9, Psalm 140:3, Psalm 10:7, Isaiah 59:7,8, and Psalm 36:1. In each and every case, the unrighteous individuals spoken of in these passages are specifically evil men, and in the greater context of these passages, the evil men are contrasted with those who are called "the righteous", "the upright", and "the innocent". Please check for yourself. Not only is there no support for Paul's picture in these passages, but in their proper context, the exact opposite is firmly established.

Here comes the controversy!!!

I want to show the the Psalm 14:3 in the Hebrew text one more time:

14:3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Even though it has been clearly established that Paul quoted from multiple different scriptures to paint this false picture of righteousness just look at what the LXX (Greek OT) says:

Psalm 14:3 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become good for nothing, there is none that does good, no not one. Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood: destruction and misery are in their ways; and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes.

Paul's quote was added back into the Greek version of the OT!!!!!

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew/downloads/PDF/q10.pdf
The Truth about the Septuagint
the septuagint...is it a fraud and forgery? can we trust it?
http://www.christianmissionconnection.org/The_Septuagint_A_Critical_Analysis.pdf
Most quotes that seem not to be quotes will be from the Essenes. The content will be found in the OT even if not as per passage. But we have no way of knowing how they understood it or how he spoke it
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Hmmmm. Not sure I agree.
Better response than I thought. :)
It would seem odd, would it not, that he did not know what they said in the OT.
What is to stop someone writing scripture then, improving on it, or even now?
Can I write scripture? What do you think?
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Better response than I thought. :)
It would seem odd, would it not, that he did not know what they said in the OT.
What is to stop someone writing scripture then, improving on it, or even now?
Can I write scripture? What do you think?

Actually, I think its obvious that Paul did know the Tanakh. Yet his ideas were concepts which couldn't be found in the scriptures so he decided to take snippets of scripture and paste them together to give his ideas credibility. Then later, Origen decided to add these misquotes into the Greek LXX to preserve Paul.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Yes, he was called into question and forced to offer animal sacrifices to prove his loyalty to the Torah. Pretty interesting that James and the apostles were still keeping animal sacrifices.
It would not be animals.... it was an offering, probably money
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I'm really enjoying this conversation but I realize we haven't even discussed the OP at all!

Is anyone at all interested in the fact that Paul's misquotes of the Tanakh are found in the Greek LXX? I find this remarkable.
If indeed they are. I suppose I should read the links, right?
If so, then it seems taht there was indeed some influence. I don't have a problem with it though. interesting though.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
It would not be animals.... it was an offering, probably money
It was definitely animals. The four men were keeping a nazarite vow. There was no monitary gift involved with the Nazarite vow. Here is how a nazarite vow ended:

13And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 14And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, 15And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings. 16And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering: 17And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering. 18And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings. Numbers 6: 13-18
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
23Do therefore this that we say to thee: We have four men which have a vow on them; 24Them take, and purify thyself with them, and be at charges with them, that they may shave their heads: and all may know that those things, whereof they were informed concerning thee, are nothing; but that thou thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the law. Acts 21: 23-24

In order for the men to shave their heads they had to offer the three animal sacrifices. James instructs Paul to offer these animals for them. This was to prove that Paul still kept the law of Moses.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
If indeed they are. I suppose I should read the links, right?
If so, then it seems taht there was indeed some influence. I don't have a problem with it though. interesting though.
I have a problem with it if it can be determined to be deceptive usage of Scriptures.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Acts confirms that these were animal sacrifices here:

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Acts 21:26
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
It was definitely animals. The four men were keeping a nazarite vow. There was no monitary gift involved with the Nazarite vow. Here is how a nazarite vow ended:

13And this is the law of the Nazarite, when the days of his separation are fulfilled: he shall be brought unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation: 14And he shall offer his offering unto the LORD, one he lamb of the first year without blemish for a burnt offering, and one ewe lamb of the first year without blemish for a sin offering, and one ram without blemish for peace offerings, 15And a basket of unleavened bread, cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, and wafers of unleavened bread anointed with oil, and their meat offering, and their drink offerings. 16And the priest shall bring them before the LORD, and shall offer his sin offering, and his burnt offering: 17And he shall offer the ram for a sacrifice of peace offerings unto the LORD, with the basket of unleavened bread: the priest shall offer also his meat offering, and his drink offering. 18And the Nazarite shall shave the head of his separation at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall take the hair of the head of his separation, and put it in the fire which is under the sacrifice of the peace offerings. Numbers 6: 13-18
I have skimmed the links.
The question I have is, How do I know that what they are saying is right? The sites might be right, they might not. On whose authority are they stating this?
But even if they are correct, and I suspect theya re, it matters little really. Scripture is spirituall discerned.

Acts 21 does not mention specifically that it is a Nazarite vow. Through the Essenes it would be slightly different. It would not be animal as they did not do that because they did not have access to the real Temple at Yerushalaim.

So they were probably Nazarenes, there version of the same. No animal sacrifices.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
The reason that it had to play out that way is that Yahshuah could not kill his own creation. God did not ask for animal sacrifices. That is what we did. He then gave rules for it. The lord could not eat meat nor kill animals. He had to be pure. One is not pure slaughtering an animal...... even though the Mosaic law demanded it. But as i have said, they were not at the real temple.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Acts confirms that these were animal sacrifices here:

26Then Paul took the men, and the next day purifying himself with them entered into the temple, to signify the accomplishment of the days of purification, until that an offering should be offered for every one of them. Acts 21:26
Offering... it does not say animal.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
I know you seem to have problems with Paul, but he was chosen by the lord. So why have problems with him. If scripture is right, and it is, then it is what it is.

Do not forget what Peter said, that Paul's words are ''hard to understand''.
 

Simplelogic

Well-Known Member
Offering... it does not say animal.
Well…the nazarite "offerings" were animal sacrifices. This was a test for Paul to prove his devotion to the law of Moses. The law of Moses tells us exactly how this process was to go. I'm not sure why were are off on this point. O well.
 
Top